In today's globalized economy, one country's economic and financial policies can reverberate far beyond its borders. Be it the spread of inflation or the impact of currency devaluation half a world away, global economic forces can have a direct impact on every person's livelihood.
Under such circumstances, international cooperation is essential to ensure stability and growth and prevent disruptive crises. But for such cooperation to be effective, the international community needs the right tools.
The IMF provides one of the most important tools. For many years, the fund has engaged its member countries in a process known as "surveillance," in which it monitors, analyzes and consults on each country's economic policies -- both exchange rate policies and relevant domestic policies.
These regular checkups help to identify potential vulnerabilities and to maintain economic stability.
However, the increasingly complex policy challenges of the globalized economy demand a fresh look at this process.
A FRESH VIEW
This June, the IMF's executive board did just that, reaching a broad consensus on updating surveillance to make it more focused and effective. This is one of the most important reforms to the fund's work in the 30 years since the surveillance process was designed.
Indeed, it is part of a much broader reform effort aimed at strengthening the IMF and will have implications extending well beyond the Fund's boardroom.
The new reform brings three critical changes.
First, it affirms that surveillance should focus on what matters for stability, and gives detailed guidance in this area. IMF advice should not be spread too thin.
Second, there is now clear advice to the fund's member countries on how they should run their exchange rate policies, and on what is acceptable to the international community.
Finally, the reform sets out clearly for the first time what is expected of surveillance, and so should promote candor and evenhanded treatment of every country.
In other words, the fund must ensure that it deals with every country the same way, including delivering clear and sometimes difficult policy messages and sharing its views with the international community.
NEW APPROACH
The new approach to exchange rate policies represents one of the most significant advances. Under the IMF Articles of Agreement, members are required to collaborate to promote a stable system of exchange rates and to avoid manipulation with a view to gaining an unfair trade advantage. Past guidance in this area was limited, focusing entirely on manipulation and on avoidance of short-term volatility.
This guidance remains, but what we meant by manipulation is now clearer. We have also addressed those policies that have caused the most harm to the system in recent years, including overvalued or undervalued exchange rate pegs maintained for domestic reasons.
This change comes at a crucial time for the world economy. Countries are experiencing strong growth, inflation is low and the threat of crisis has receded considerably. Few countries need to borrow from the IMF -- a highly positive trend.
But improved surveillance is essential to ensure that the global economy remains on an even keel. By clarifying what surveillance entails, the new decision should help the IMF and its members see eye to eye on the fund's role, help those involved in surveillance do their job properly and make the fund more accountable for delivering on this key responsibility.
MULTILATERALISM
This reform represents a victory for multilateralism that demonstrates ownership of how fund surveillance will be strengthened and members' willingness to live up to their responsibilities in the process. Of course, it is critically important that it received very broad support from industrial countries, emerging economies, and developing countries.
The international community needs a setting where it can debate the most sensitive economic issues, including -- but certainly not limited to -- exchange rate issues. The IMF offers that venue. At the same time, it can provide the nonpartisan technical expertise that enables governments to define policies that will ensure continued economic stability.
The goal is to support policies that are good for each member country ? but also for other countries ? through dialogue and persuasion. This is the very essence of international cooperation.
Rodrigo de Rato is managing director of the IMF.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing